About this Site

PM5104: On sexual ethics

Sexual ethics is the division of applied ethics
which considers the ethics of human sexuality. On many of these
questions there are two major approaches - on the one hand, there are
those such as conservative/traditionalist Christians, Jews, Muslims, and
followers of other religions, who see God as having a particular plan
for human sexuality, and judging sexual acts for their conformance to
this plan - on the other hand, there is an approach favoured by secular
and religious liberals, which believes that consenting adults should be
free to engage in whatever sexual activities make them happy. There are a
number of differences of opinion or approach within each view.

Particular issues

Homosexuality

One issue is homosexuality.
Here, the conservative approach sees heterosexuality as part of God's
plan, and thus believes homosexuality to be morally deficient. By
contrast, the liberal approach sees homosexuality as part of the natural
variation of human beings (and other animals), and thus believes that
society should treat homosexuality and heterosexuality equally.
Subordinate issues include:

whether homosexuality should be decriminalised? — historically
homosexual acts have been criminal in many countries; although in
Western countries these laws have been abolished, they still exist in
many non-Western countries

whether the government should give legal recognition to
homosexual relationships equivalent to that given to heterosexual ones? —
such as by extending marriage to same-sex couples, or by setting up some parallel system such as civil unions

whether homosexual couples or individuals should be allowed to adopt children?

whether there should be legal protections against
discrimination against gay people, and to what extent should those
protections provide exceptions for those with moral objections to
homosexuality, including religious groups or individual believers?

whether there should be restrictions on speech which
disapproves of homosexuality, or do the free speech rights of those with
moral objections take precedence?

Pre-marital sex

The conservative view sees marriage as an essential social
institution, established by God; sex outside of marriage is immoral -
thus pre-marital sex is rejected, and abstinence until marriage is
insisted upon. The liberal view sees marriage as an institution which
takes many different forms in many different cultures, a human creation,
whose relevance or importance is up to each individual to decide for
themselves.

Polygamy and open relationships

Different approaches to sexual ethics can also be seen in the issues
of polygamy and open/polyamorous relations. In Christianity and Judaism,
marriage is seen as a relationship between two people - the ideal is
Adam and Eve. Although polygamy was permitted in some historical
circumstances, it was never the ideal, and in contemporary circumstances
there is no reason for it to be accepted.

The liberal viewpoint believes that all sexual relations are
morally permissible between consenting adults; thus, if people have
multi-partner relations with the full knowledge and consent of all the
parties, there can be no moral objection. This is distinguished from the
case of multi-partner relations without knowledge or consent,
concerning which liberals tend to share a negative view with
conservatives, although liberals will often not feel adultery to be as
seriously wrong as conservatives feel it to be.

There are two very different groups involved here, with little in
common beyond a rejection of society's standard of monogamy. On the one
hand, there are the polygamists, belonging to Islam, fundamentalist
Mormonism, and other non-mainstream Christian groups. They believe in
exclusively polygyny (one husband, many wives), not polyandry (one wife,
many husbands) nor polygynandry (many wives and many husbands); they
reject homosexuality, and generally have very conservative views on
sexual morality. On the other hand, are the polyamorists, who believe in
"free love", with each person able to have as many partners as they
wish, without concern for the genders of those involved, and a liberal
sexual morality in general. Conservative defenders of monogamy oppose
both groups. Some liberals will also oppose polygamy, on the grounds
that it is oppressive to women, and many of the groups who practice it
engage in forced and underage marriages. Other liberals concentrate more
on the rights of adults to have as many simultaneous consenting sexual
partners as they wish.

Artificial contraception

Some denominations, the Catholic Church in particular, see artificial contraception
as interfering with God's design for the human body, and as disobedient
to God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". The Catholic Church
also views contraception as something which enables many other forms of
sexual sin, by reducing the fear of pregnancy or sexually-transmitted
diseases. However, natural methods of contraception are seen as
acceptable, such as avoiding sexual intercourse during the fertile part
of the woman's menstrual cycle.

Other denominations differ in their views - some Protestant
churches also oppose contraception, others accept it for use within
marriage only. By contrast, liberal sexual ethics sees contraception as a
good thing, preventing the birth of children in undesirable
circumstances, preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases,
and enabling people to enjoy sexual pleasure without negative
consequences. There are also some techniques which are called
"contraception" (especially "emergency contraception"), but which rather
than preventing conception, actually prevent implantation of the
fertilized embryo in the womb - which many thus believe to be a form of abortion.

Divorce

Some Christian denominations - most notably the Catholic Church - reject divorce, based on Jesus saying "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6; see also Mark 10:9). However, the Catholic church does permit annulment, which is much more restricted than divorce is.

Many other Christian denominations permit divorce, but they
believe it is not a good thing, and is far too common and easily
obtainable in modern Western society.

Judaism and Islam have always permitted divorce, although they
are subject to complicated rules - these rules have been criticised as
being biased against women.

A liberal view sees divorce as the best option in many cases -
either when a relationship is abusive, or even when a couple have grown
apart and no longer feel the same love for each other that they once
did. From a liberal viewpoint, if one is unhappy in a marriage, ending
the marriage can be an opportunity to find a new relationship in which
you may be happier.

Pornography

Another dispute relates to pornography.
A conservative moral perspective sees pornography as deviating from the
divine plan for human sexuality, as encouraging other forms of sexual
immorality, and as resulting in the exploitation of the vulnerable. Many
liberals, by contrast, see it as morally neutral or even as a good
thing, as something which enables people to explore their sexuality.
This is an issue, however, where the labels of "conservative" and
"liberal" do not always so easily apply - many (but not all) feminists, who otherwise have quite liberal views on sexual ethics, are opposed to pornography as exploiting and objectifying women.

Prostitution

The conservative viewpoint rejects prostitution.
There are many passages in the Bible which condemn it, and associate it
with pagan religious practices of temple prostitution. Liberal views
vary - some liberals with a feminist approach oppose prostitution as a
form of economic and sexual exploitation of women; others support it as
entailed by social, economic or bodily/sexual freedom - "it's my body
and I can sell it if I want" - whereas a biblical view sees people's
bodies as not belonging to themselves, but belonging to God, and thus
not theirs to sell. Some liberals are also sympathetic to the ancient
pagan practices of temple prostitution, which the Bible strongly
condemns.

Masturbation

Conservatives are opposed to masturbation, seeing it as unhealthy for the mind, as producing unwholesome thoughts — Jesus says in Matthew 5:28 that for a man to look upon a woman lustfully is to commit adultery with her in his heart — as producing addiction, and as often associated with the evils of pornography. Liberals by contrast see masturbation as a natural and healthy form of sexual release, and a form of self-education.

Singleness and celibacy

The Bible speaks positively of singleness — Matthew 19:12 (assuming eunuch in this verse is meant figuratively rather than literally), 1 Corinthians 7:7-8. The Catholic Church formalised this call into compulsory celibacy
for the clergy, and celibate orders of monks and nuns. Protestants have
not accepted the requirement of celibacy, but many still view
singleness as something to which certain people are called by God.
Liberals tend to view celibacy and extended singleness, as unhealthy,
and missing out on an important part of life - although it may be the
natural choice for some people with unusually low sexual appetites
(asexuality). The Bible however sees singleness as a call, not just for
those with little sexual drive, but also for some who have to fight
against their sexual inclinations in order to fulfill this call — some
think this is the "thorn in the flesh" Paul alludes to in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.

Areas of agreement

Despite the deep differences of opinion between conservatives and
liberals, there are some areas of common ground in sexual ethics: such
as the belief in the immorality of sexual acts which involve
non-consenting partners (rape, sexual slavery), or those who are
incapable of consent (children or the intellectually disabled).

In Maratreanism

Maratreanism cannot really be described as following either approach.
The end results are nearer to the liberal perspective; but the steps to
get their nearer to the conservative. Like conservative Jews,
Christians or Muslims, Maratreanism sees human sexuality as an essential
part of the divine plan, and beliefs that sexual ethics should be
judged accordingly. However, for Maratreans, the divine plan is
inclusive rather than exclusive - homosexuality plays just an important a
role in the divine plan for human sexuality as heterosexuality does.

For Maratreans, the divine plan is to return all souls to their
original oneness with another, to reunite all souls as one. This is to
be achieved, not by merging all souls together at once, but by a series
of successive mergers. These mergers are not forced upon the souls -
rather, they are seduced into them. Human sexuality, as a kind of union
of bodies, signifies, prophesies, and foretells, the coming union of
souls. This union of souls is not (ordinarily) known in this life, but
only in the next.

From the nature of this process of union, we can derive our
sexual ethic. Since the union of souls is voluntary, not forced upon us,
we must therefore condemn as immoral, being contrary to the divine
plan, non-voluntary sexual acts such as rape.
The process of union does not finish with the union of two souls; the
resultant unified soul then goes on to participate in yet further
unions. As a sign of this, we support multi-partner relationships, those
with more than three partners. They are not compulsory, but only for
those who feel called to this way of life. This is not the same thing as
adultery or cheating - it is only morally acceptable if done with the
full knowledge and consent of all those involved. It is different from
the practice of polygamy, which in many versions (Islam, fundamentalist
Mormonism, Christian polygamy) is restricted to only one man and
multiple wives - we accept any combination - all women, all men, one man
and several women, one woman and several men, several men and several
women.

Homosexuality

Because the process of union begins, not with all souls merging
together as one, but with many individual unions between individual
souls, it follows all these unions will have a different nature, in
accord with the developed nature of the souls so uniting. Thus there is
properly immense diversity in human sexuality - both heterosexual and
homosexual - and that diversity is part of the divine plan. As such,
Maratreanism is fully accepting of homosexuality as equal in value to
heterosexuality, and deserving of equal recognition by society.

This means that Maratreanism believes that:

homosexual relations should completely legal — laws against them
are worthless and evil laws that must be abolished — these laws are
repugnant to the law of heaven, and the law of the cause

governments must extend full and equal recognition to
homosexual relationships. Maratreanism rejects half-hearted solutions
such as civil unions, except as temporary compromises — separate but
equal is never equal. Maratreanism also rejects proposals for marriage
privatization, since they deprive the state of the opportunity to give
approval to these relationships, which it is obligated to do

limitations on the right of same-sex couples or non-heterosexual individuals to adopt children are immoral and must be abolished

the state must use its law-making power to protect sexual
minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons,
from discrimination

Maratreanism believes that a fair and reasonable balance needs to be
struck between the right of sexual minorities to live lives free from
discrimination and hate speech, on the one hand, and religious freedom
and freedom of speech on the other.

Some people believe that same-sex
love is a sin. I myself, believe that believing that same-sex love is a
sin is itself a heinous sin.

Marriage vs. Enamouration

For discussion of the Maratrean attitude towards issues of marriage,
divorce, polygamy, adultery, open relationships, etc. – see the article on enamouration

Artificial contraception

Unlike some other religious groups, which object to artificial
contraception, Maratreanism endorses all effective forms of
contraception; including methods such as emergency contraception which
are sometimes objected to on anti-abortion grounds.

Pornography

Maratreanism takes a middle of the road position with respect to
pornography. It neither joins those voices which will condemn it
unconditionally; neither does it join those voices that see it as
completely unproblematic. There is nothing in principle wrong with
images of people naked, or images of people engaged in sexual activity;
however, the contemporary pornography industry is exploitative and
expresses a viewpoint about human sexuality with which we cannot agree.
There is nothing inheretly wrong with images or video or other
depictions of nudity or sexual acts, including when these depictions are
sexually arousing to the viewer. At the same time, we need to pay
attention to the context and messages of these works, and their means of
production and distribution. Commercial pornography is open to ethical
criticism on the grounds of the messages it often conveys (about people
in general, and women in particular), and its capitalist means of
production and distribution. Maratreanism is opposed to capitalism;
however, the area of human sexuality is so central to the essence of
being that the anti-capitalist position must be especially central in
the area.

Prostitution

Maratreanism discourages prostitution in general, although it does
not completely prohibit it. However, the same position we apply to
pornography we should also apply to prostitution - we are opposed to
capitalism, but in such a fundamental area as human sexuality we must
make our opposition to it particularly clear. Thus, we must discourage
prostitution insofar as it is an application to human sexuality of the
capitalist economic system. At the same time we must oppose
criminalization of prostitution as being counterproductive.

Masturbation

Maratreanism sees nothing wrong with masturbation in general, although it can be problematic in some specific cases.

Singleness and celibacy

Maratreanism sees the union of souls as an essential part of human
destiny. Although there may be times in life when a period of singleness
is beneficial, Maratreanism sees a life where romantic-sexual love is
permanently lacking as deficient. The most severe form of this
deficiency is when romantic-sexual love is willingly rejected in
obedience to the misguided that such abstinence is a good thing; it is
not. As such, Maratreanism rejects the institutions of celibacy which
some religions favour; celibacy is prohibited in the Maratrean religion.

Bestiality

Bestiality refers to sex between humans and animals. Sexual
conservatives reject it because it is against God's law or just plain
disgusting. Some sexual liberals try to argue it is wrong because the
animal can't consent, but that is only sometimes true - sometimes, the
animal seems to enjoy it - arguments about informed consent are often
analogies with the idea that children or the intellectually disabled
cannot consent. However, this analogy doesn't really hold - children are
beings who have not yet reached their full potential of adulthood,
including of adult sexuality; the intellectually disabled are beings who
may never reach that potential; adult animals have fully reached their
potential, including the full potential of their sexuality.

What does Maratreanism say? Maratreanism does not approve of
sexual relations between humans and animals; it agrees that they are to
be discouraged, but it differs from both the conservative and liberal
views as to why. Maratreanism asks - what is the fundamental purpose of
sexuality? It is not reproduction; it is not just pleasure; it is not
just building emotional bonds; it may do all these things, but these do
not explain its true purpose. Its true purpose is to act as a sign which
foretells and prophesies the coming union of souls. This union is
certainly an emotional bond - but it is much more than an emotional
bond. And it is certainly pleasurable - but a pleasure far greater than
any physical sexuality. So the emotions and the pleasure can form part
of this foretelling. What then about reproduction?

She created the world by dividing herself; it is her will that
the world reunite to become one with her once again. And yet, they souls
having divided cannot return to oneness once away - she must allow time
enough for the world to be, and all the souls that will exist to come
into existence - for these souls being not other than her, such is
necessary for her existence which is necessary. Therefore, she creates
distractions, she lays stumbling blocks in the way of the union of
souls, to lead them astray, for a time, that they do not too soon have
their union. And this very leading astray is also the cause of the very
being of many of them, and thus of her own being. Thus, sex as
reproduction is part of this very distraction - in the final days,
reproduction shall first cease to be by sex, before ceasing entirely.
Another aspect is when sex for pleasure is taken to positions which
undermine the ultimate idea of sex as foretelling soul-union - such as
pornography or prostitution. Or when sex is used as a means of power or
violence, as in sexual assault. But we, belonging to the final end, let
us know these distractions for what they are, and be not a part of them;
for having sent forth distractions first, she then sends us forth
second, her most holy Cause, for their undoing.

Thus we see bestiality as another distraction. We oppose it, not
that we think it is necessarily bad for animals - but it is certainly
bad for humans. It is limiting them from achieving their full potential
of sexuality. We certainly love animals very deeply - great is our love
for the sacred animals. But, animal sexuality is a distraction for us;
the animals themselves, when they are raised to our level, shall
renounce it in favour of the sexuality which we possess.

Animal souls do not directly unite; first they are transformed
into human souls; and then in turn animal bodies are transformed into
human bodies; finally, these transformed souls do merge as human souls
do.

Incest

Maratreanism rejects incest; but for what reasons?

Some proffered reasons for prohibiting incest that don't make
much sense: Firstly, passing on bad genes, risk of birth defects, etc. -
these are only arguments against inbreeding (incestuous reproduction)
not non-reproductive incestuous sex - e.g. homosexual incest, incestuous
sex with the sterilized, infertile, post-menopausal, etc., incestuous
heterosexual sex with contraception. Furthermore, laws or taboos against
incest don't correspond with biological reality - sex between identical
twin double cousins (each member of a pair of male identical twins has a
child with the corresponding member of a pair is generally treated
differently from sex between full siblings), even though from a genetic
viewpoint these two cases are indistinguishable.

Secondly, issues of consent/abuse, etc. These concerns deserve
more weight, but they can't justify a universal prohibition, only a
prohibition in certain circumstances. Certainly where there is a
difference in age (parents-children, older-younger siblings), then that
may make impossible real consent, even among those who are now all
adults. But, that cannot justify the prohibition of incest in every
circumstance.

So, is there any reason left to prohibit incest? Maratreanism
believes there is, and it concerns the union of souls. According to
Maratreanism, sexual union foretells and signifies the union of souls.
Maratrea is the sole ultimate parent of all, the ultimate parenthood to
which all parenthood is to be compared. Union with the parent is the end
of all things, the end of the world. Thus, that there be time enough
for the worlds to be, union with the parent must be prohibited. This is
the fundamental reason for the prohibition of parent-child incest; were
it commonly accepted, it would cause the end of the universe. The child
must turn from the parent to seek another - thus, the soul must seek
another soul to merge with first, prior to union with Maratrea, which
can only come at the end of all things, that the many worlds may have
time enough for their existence. Union with Maratrea must wait for
ultimate or penultimate merger (Suaretta is already in a real sense
Maratrea, although she is not the fulness Maratrea until the fulness of
her reunion with Suarenna.)

From the prohibition of parent-child incest flows every other
incest prohibition; the sibling is under the authority of the parent;
belonging to the parent, incest with the sibling is (by one degree of
removal) incest with the parent, and thus prohibited under the same
prohibition which prohibits incest with the parent.

It must be noted this prohibition must be ultimately lifted; but,
by the time it is so lifted, we should not think there exist parents
and children individually to violate it (by then they would already have
merged with others), nor that physical sexuality any more exist - once
souls are merging, there is no more any need for something to foretell
and signify that merger. So, by the time the prohibition of incest is
lifted, incest no longer would occur. So we can conclude that when it
occurs it is prohibited, and when it is permitted it does not occur.